Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

(Except clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20 and 92) - Clause 112

VAT exemption for gaming participation fees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Hands: May I start by welcoming you back to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson. I also welcome the new Exchequer Secretary because this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. It seems like only yesterdayperhaps it was yesterdaythat we welcomed her predecessor. In fact, it was only last Tuesday that I welcomed the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) to the role, while we were debating the MEPs pay clause. She got the chop after just nine days, making her the Lady Jane Grey of the Treasury. However, I wish the new Exchequer Secretary well. The Treasury desperately needs some stability at this time of record deficits, rapidly increasing unemployment, open warfare with the Bank of England and unhelpful directives from the EU.

Jeremy Browne: Is it not salutary to reflect that Government borrowing went up by more than £3 billion during the tenure of the previous Exchequer Secretary?

Peter Atkinson: Order. I hope that we can conduct this sitting in a more ordered fashion. We are discussing clause 112. We have had our fun now.

Greg Hands: It is worth saying that since the publication of the Finance Bill, five Ministers have had responsibility for North sea oil, whether on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. The Exchequer Secretary appears to be well-trained as she approaches her portfolio.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I have made it clear that we have gone far enough. The hon. Gentleman is taking liberties with my patience.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. Clause 112 represents the other side to the Governments measures on bingo, although it will also have some effect on games such as poker. That impact will become clearer when we discuss clause 113. Hon. Members will remember the debate in the Committee of the whole House on 13 May on clause 20, which will raise bingo duty on gross profits from 15 to 22 per cent. Clause 112 will remove the VAT on participation fees, which are the up-front charges that players pay to enter the game. The Government argue that by introducing those two measures simultaneously, they will reduce the bingo industrys effective rate of taxation.
The Government have trumpeted the generosity of these provisions, but as I explained to the Committee of the whole House, in practice, they are nothing of the kind. Bingo operators have argued for years that the VAT on participation fees was unfair and impermissible under EU law. Following a VAT tribunal hearing last year, which was discussed in some detail under clause 20, most bingo operators have withheld their VAT payments, especially on interval bingo. Operators such as Top Ten Bingo have withdrawn or withheld VAT altogether.
In the Committee of the whole House, the then Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle)just to be quite clear, that is going back two Exchequer Secretarieswas forced to admit that the figures in the Red Book were based on the Governments interpretation of the law and what they thought should be paid, rather than on actual receipts. In practice, every operator believes that they will pay more tax as a net result of the changes in clauses 20 and 112. However, she stuck terrier-like to the theory and shunned what was happening with VAT in practice. She explained:
The industry can have any opinion that it likes about the taxation system that applies to it. I am not responsible for the opinions of the bingo industry; it can welcome the measures or not. What I am talking about is the effective tax rate.[Official Report, 13 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 978.]
With the best of possible intentions, I advise her second successor to take a more conciliatory line. The Treasury figures would have only begun to make sense if the Government had won the ongoing appeal in the High Court. We took the view that the Government were seeking to pre-empt the Courts decision and tabledand voted onan amendment seeking to delay the changes until the legal position became clearer.
Only a few weeks later that argument already seems vindicated. Since we debated clause 20, the High Court has ruled against HMRC. The Government have lost their case. In the Courts view, the VAT that clause 112 proposes to lift from interval bingo should never have been applied in the first place. That is the crux of the matter. Furthermore, the ruling has also been interpreted as giving strong support to the view that VAT on any form on bingo is impermissible under EU fiscal neutrality rules.
I was interested to read The Times City Diary on 9 June, which commented:
With further claims amounting to £50 million in the pipeline from Rank and as much as £500 million from the wider gaming industry, it is not hard to work out why HMRC launched a cynical pre-emptive strike on duty in the Budget.
The Government have proven themselves to be the enemy of the bingo sector and of hundreds of thousands of bingo players up and down the country.

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a growing tax that is hated up and down the land? I have heard many people, many of them elderly ladies who derive great pleasure from this hobby, who feel really hard done by.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will shortly discuss the demographics of bingo. He makes a very strong point. I was intrigued to see the ongoing campaign on the issue. The campaign organisation has produced a bingo board with the faces of all of the relevant Government Ministers. It blots out the faces of all the Ministers who have left since the Finance Bill was published. There are a number of full houses and lines due to the incredible comings and goings we have seen across the Government since the Budget on 22 April.
It would be extremely helpful, for the purposes of the debate, if the Minister could indicate whether HMRC will be appealing the High Courts decision. It has only a few days left in which to do so. It would be helpful for contributors to the debate to know whether the ruling will actually be appealed. Would she like to intervene at this point?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am more than happy to intervene. There are some important legal points to consider, and the decision to appeal has not yet been made. I recognise that time is of the essence, and a decision will obviously be made before the date.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for that intervention. We would all hope that a decision would be made in the required time. It expires in the next few days. If I remember correctly, the High Court ruled more than two weeks, or maybe even three weeks ago. There are only a handful of days left.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have until 30 June.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for that intervention. The clock is ticking. Today is the 27th. [Hon. Members: 25th.] It is the 25th, I apologise. There is less than half a business week, which is a terribly long time in the world of the Treasury. Who knows what might happen in those few days? I digress. I found that answer very interesting.

Peter Bone: Given what has just been said, is it unfortunate that we are discussing this clause now? Unless my hon. Friend is intending to speak until after 30 June, would it not be better[Laughter.] I cannot give way. My point is that it is unfortunate that this is being discussed now.

Greg Hands: It would be beyond the scope of my contribution to debate the timetable. Today is scheduled as the last day. I suspect that bingo may come back at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill. I hope that we will have a chance to consider the implications of the Governments decision, assuming that they do make one.
During the debate on clause 20, I questioned the Governments figures on the cost of removing VAT from participation fees, which is what we have in front of us todayin other words, the theoretical rather than the actual cost of the clause. We need to look at both, bearing in mind what has been happening in the industry in relation to paying VAT. We need to look at the cost at the moment, assuming that VAT was being paid in all areas. Since the debate on clause 20, we have more information, via answers to written questions, on how the Treasury arrived at its figure of £50 million. On 18 May, the Financial Secretary, who is with us this morning, replied that the cost of removing VAT on mainstage bingo, which is the standard form of the game, was £20 million. In one of the few acts during her short-lived return to the Treasury, the Ministers immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Burnley, added on 10 June that the cost of removing VAT on interval bingo, which is the newer form that the High Court ruled on, was £25 million. Both figures account for the effect on duty revenue. That makes £45 million in total, compared with the figure of £50 million in the Red Book. I assume that the remaining £5 million relates to participation fees on so-called equal chance games other than bingo, principally poker, which, as I mentioned at the beginning, is affected by clause 112. Will the Minister confirm the figures? It has been difficult for me and some of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), to get to the bottom of the figures. I would be grateful for clarification of whether the £50 million is the 25-plus-20-plus-5 that I just outlined.
The estimates for 2009-10 back up the argument I made during debate in the Committee of the whole House, that the industry will in practice pay more as a result of the Bill. We are not aware of any major operator paying VAT on interval bingo at present. After the Court ruling, it is hard to believe that any operators would contemplate doing so. A number of operators are withholding VAT receipts on mainstage bingo, feelingas may turn out to be correctthat mainstage bingo is equally affected by the ruling. That number would, I believe, now swell. It is reasonable to conclude that actual receipts would have been below £20 million for the 2009-10 financial year before the Court ruling and could now potentially be zeroso not the £50 million that is outlined in the Red Book.
Going back to clause 20 for a moment, the Red Book shows that the increase in bingo duty is expected to raise £35 million. Far from reducing the effective tax rate, as the Ministers predecessor insisted, the Governments proposals constitute a tax hike of at least £15 million. I would be grateful for confirmation of that figure.
I am not sure why the Financial Secretary said the following during the Budget debate:
Overall, the announcements in the Budget on the taxation of bingo are welcome to the industry.[Official Report, 23 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 434.]
I found that extraordinary at the time and, in retrospect, it has become even more so. Perhaps he can now understand why the industry reacted so vociferously. An article in the The Sun on 9 June was headlined in typical fashion, Hands off our balls. That headline was not referring to me, unlike the other headline Hands catches Balls which related to terrorist finance and yet another previous Treasury Minister. The headline in The Sun to which I referred was purely about bingo. The chief executive of Rank said:
Bookmakers, the football pools, provincial casinos all pay just 15 per centyet we are hit like this. What I find most staggering is that bingo players are typically in Labour heartlands. Yet we have had more support from Conservatives, the SNP and the Lib Dems than anyone in Government.
Four members of this Committee seem to agree with the chief executive and have signed early-day motion 1569, which effectively calls on the Government to rethink their position on raising bingo duty. When I checked yesterday, some 67 Labour MPs had signed the motion. The Government have even managed to unite all of the bingo operators. The Im backing bingo campaign combines the Bingo Association, Mecca, Gala, Castle, Buckingham, Club Grand, Carlton, Opera and Cosmo, and all are opposed to the Governments plans. Many hon. Members will already have received letters from constituents who play bingo. As I understand it, there will even be a bingo rally in Parliament square, which we can all look forward to.
Bingo clubs must be seen in their proper perspective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South said, bingo plays an important role in the lives of the many and not the few. The Governments crass approach to bingo in this years Budget has upset bingo players up and down the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East pointed out in the debate on Second Reading, some 8.5 million people in this country play bingo each year. More than 200 Members of the House have a bingo club in their constituency. Regrettably, I am no longer one of them. Mecca Bingo on Vanston place in Fulham closed just a couple of years ago due partly, I believe, to the pressures facing the industry, about which I will be talking. The bingo clubs have a lot of members. I met Rob Halfon, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Harlow, recently, and he told me that there were 42,000 members of the Harlow bingo club. In a Westminster Hall debate in February, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) told the Chamber that there were 83,000 members of a club in his constituency.
Just to return to Harlow for a moment, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and Rob Halfon visited the club, I am told that almost 200 players were hard at it in the middle of the day. So, we are talking about incredibly popular facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) talked in that same debate about his Mecca bingo hall in Crewe. He said that 33 employees deal with, on average, 2,500 visits each week, and the club has some 12,500 members.

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend also accept that there is a very great social facet to this whole business? Many people go to the bingo clubs and are treated to subsidised lunches, which is a great boon because they do not have to cook for themselves. Have the Government taken that into account?

Greg Hands: Regrettably, the Government have not taken that into account. We can see that by their really appalling treatment of the sector over the years, and, most notably, in the Finance Bill. My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the clubs important social role. The closure of bingo clubs has been shown to contribute to social dislocation in communities, particularly for women and the elderly.
The demographics of bingo are not always what one would expect. The age profile of bingo players is becoming younger. I am told that the mid-age for some clubs can be as low as 45, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and I were saying only the other week, is getting dangerously close to home. Some 75 per cent. of players are women, and they are uniformly well behaved citizens, enjoying some leisure time in a fairly harmless manner. I know that it is gambling, and no one should underestimate the wider impact of gambling in our society. None the less, we are discussing a group of law-abiding, orderly citizens who have been playing the game that they love in a socially interactive way.

Jeremy Browne: Of course, bingo is gambling and some people disapprove of all gambling, but most people would admit that it is the most benign form. If the Government were to penalise any form of gambling, one would have thought that it would be the type that was addictive or most likely to be financially harmful to the participants, rather than disproportionately punishing the most benign form.

Greg Hands: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It seems to make no sense to tax bingo at 22 per cent. and many other forms of gambling at 15 per cent. He makes a fair point about the comparative nature of forms of gambling and their addiction and social impact.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I agree with his speech in general, but bingo does not prosper only in Labour areas. There may be more Labour seats at the moment, but they will be Conservative after the next general election. In my area, I shall be visiting the Flutters club in the near future, because the manager is worried about the very points that my hon. Friend is making.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I look forward to hearing a report from the club, and hearing at first hand what some of the members are saying about the Governments proposals in clauses 20 and 112.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am enjoying the hon. Gentlemans setting of the scene, but given that we are discussing not clause 20, but clause 112, will he say whether he supports its removal?

Greg Hands: Perhaps I should have made it absolutely clear. We have been calling for removal of VAT on bingo for many years. Of course we support clause 112, but it would not have arisen without clause 20, so it is only fair to refer to clause 20 when considering clause 112.

Mark Todd: As the hon. Gentleman has been allowed some breadth to consider the matter, perhaps he would discourse on the longer term taxation of this activity. I seem to recall a taxation level before 1997 that exceeded that which applies now.

Greg Hands: I am unaware of that, but I am happy to look into it. I was not in the Houseit was 12 years agoand I was not a regular in bingo halls. I am unaware of what the tax situation was prior to 1997, but I am happy to look into it, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Bingo clubs make a significant contribution to the Exchequers coffers, and accordingly to industry sources, every club contributes around £1 million per annum in taxation. However, the overall tax contribution from bingo is falling, and bingo clubs are out of fashion. In 2003, there were 699 clubs in the UK, but that number has fallen by about 15 per cent. to around 590. Last year, more than 30 clubs had to close.
Obviously, several factors are involved, and the sector has been hit hard by the smoking ban and the restrictions on gaming machines. I appreciate that those restrictions have been relaxed a little, but it is estimated that they have resulted in around 3,500 job losses in the sector since the Gambling Act 2005. Nevertheless, the bingo worlds tax treatment has been its biggest irritant. Anyone who has talked to the clubs knows that operators have campaigned for its removal for some time. Ordinarily, they would welcome the clause.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport agreed with the clubs some time agothis is one of those interesting splits in the Governmentand stated in the explanatory memorandum to the Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2008:
The consultation produced 12 other proposals for assisting the bingo industry. The most popular of these was removing that on bingo participation. This is a matter for the Treasury, but DCMS continues to put the case for this reform.
I should be grateful to hear from the Minister whether she, her predecessor or her predecessor but one have finally listened to the DCMS view, and what finally swung it for them this year, because in previous years it did not seem to cut much ice.
The Treasury has made conflicting noises on the extent to which the decline of bingo is due to the tax regime. We know that the last but one Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey, who debated clause 20 on the Floor of the House some five weeks ago, campaigned for many years for a reduction in tax on football pools. I shall explain why that is relevant. Littlewoods is, of course, in her constituency.
The Government tax football pools at 15 per cent. of gross profitsthe same rate that bingo was charged at before the Budget, but football pools have been VAT-exempt for some time. The hon. Member for Wallasey told her local newspaper, the Wirral Globe, on 26 March 1997:
We must fight to preserve the remaining pools jobs. We will be pressing the new Government to achieve a level playing field in tax and regulations between pools and lottery. We are aware that the lottery changes the nature of the gaming industry and poses a continuing threat to the remaining 1,400 pools jobs and those of 57,000 collectors.
I recall that it was a long election campaign and that quote must have been given during it.
Internal Treasury documents, which came to light after freedom of information requests, show that the Treasury believes that bingos plight is at least partly due to tax. One states that
it is hard to believe that the problems faced by bingo clubs could be solved purely by removing VAT.
We agree, but the implication is that if they cannot be explained purely by removing VAT then tax is part of the problem, in the same way that the last but one Exchequer Secretary viewed it as being part of the problem for the football pools industry. I note that she never suggested raising pools duty to 22 per cent.
Meanwhile, I am told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to meet representatives of the bingo industry or the Bingo Associationhe may have other things on his mind at the momentand, incredibly, even insisted that none were present when he visited a bingo club in his constituency in October 2008. That must be a unique occasion: the Chancellor barred the companys management from their own premises. The reason given was that the right hon. Gentleman was visiting
as a constituency MP, rather than as Chancellor.
I am told that that is the only occasion in more than 60 MP constituency visits to local Mecca Bingo clubs that anyone has refused to meet the companys management. It is an extraordinary state of affairs.

Mark Todd: In my correspondence with the local bingo industrythere is no hall in my area but my constituents visit one nearbyI have asked to look at the businesss books to understand how the tax works and the impact of the VAT reduction. Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that, so far, that invitation has not been taken up?

Greg Hands: Sorry, I may have misunderstood the intervention. The hon. Gentleman invited the business to show him its books so that he could see the impactthat is a kind offer. It is not for me to talk about the relationship between him and his local bingo club, but he must agree that it is bizarre for the Chancellor to refuse to meet the management. Why would a Chancellor visit his local bingo club and not be prepared to debate the issue?
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con) rose
Mr. Binleyrose

Greg Hands: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East.

James Duddridge: Surely the issue is that the business mentioned by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire is not in his constituency. It would be wholly inappropriate for him to interfere with a business in a neighbouring constituency, as he very well knows. I have met Mecca Bingo twice in my constituency and it has been very good. I met once with the national management, who wanted better dialogue and were very angry that Alistair Darling had not met their management team. I am saddened by bingo taxation legislation. It is detrimental

Peter Atkinson: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we do not yet refer to right hon. and hon. Members by their names? I believe that he is referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not sure that I can add anything to it, but I congratulate him on going to see his local Mecca Bingo club. I only wish that I could have the same pleasure. Unfortunately, my local club closed down, as I mentioned, because of many of the pressures that we have been talking about.
I must now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South.

Brian Binley: I thought that I was invisible, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me when I say that, in my experience, the clubs are very open and are more than happy to welcome Members of Parliament? That is certainly the case in my local club in Northampton, which I have visited on two occasions and hope to visit again shortly. The welcome that I receive there is overwhelming, and the information given to me is as full as I needed and had asked for. The point that we are discussing came up again and again. We need to set the record straight about those clubs.

Greg Hands: I agree with my hon. Friend. Earlier, I mentioned various hon. Members from various parties who had visited their local bingo clubs. The bingo industry is taking an intelligent approach and is inviting parliamentary candidates in key marginal seats to visit clubs. That approach may yield some interesting results in constituencies such as Harlow.
Let me return briefly to the social value of bingo. In August 2007, the Henley Centre, a research group, conducted some research on bingo. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Henley here today. I do not know much about the Henley Centre, but I assume that it is located in his constituency. It published Unlucky for Somethe Social Impact of Bingo Club Closures, which is the centres impact assessment of the closure of clubs owed in part by the tax treatment. The report concluded:
The closure of bingo clubs, especially those in small rural venues and deprived urban locations, has meant not only the loss of a pastime and form of entertainment, but the disappearance of a unique social support network, relied upon especially by retired women.
It continued:
The demise of this pastime and network can have a detrimental impact upon the physical and mental wellbeing of patrons, especially as there are often few other opportunities for this group to socialise. Bingo closures also appear to be both a manifestation and a catalyst for a wider breakdown of local communities that could have a negative impact on society.
As we debate why bingo should be taxed at 22 per cent., the Henley Centres study puts the question in its proper context. Although, thankfully, VAT on participation fees has been removed, the duty on bingo is significantly higher than it is on their gambling brethren, for want of a better term.
In conclusion, bingo clubs are worthy of our support, yet the Government have managed to enrage all of them. If Ministers believe that they are helping bingo, why did Galas chairman say that
The industry has been quite badly hit
by the Budget, and that
Its nonsense to portray this
that is, the Budget
as a giveaway to bingo.
Why do all the major operators say that they will end up paying more as a result of the measure, despite the fact that the Financial Secretary claimed that the net effect would be welcomed by the industry?

Brian Jenkins: Although I find this to be a long and tortuous route to the vote on the clause, when the hon. Gentleman says that people say they are going to pay more tax, is that in reference to the tax that they should have been paying but were withholding, the tax they are actually paying, or the tax that will be paid under the new arrangement, which is merely a tax on their profits? Which of those are we talking about?

Greg Hands: All of them, I think. I outlined some details earlier, but I am waiting to hear back from the Minister to be absolutely precise. We were trying to deconstruct the £50 million in tax that supposedly will be saved by the bingo industry; the Government have not been entirely straight about where that £50 million saving is coming from. I speculated earlier, using three figures: £20 million on the interval bingo; £25 million on the more traditional bingo, and £5 million on poker duties and perhaps other duties. We are waiting for the Minister to answer our question about where that estimate of a saving of £50 million comes from.
Why have even independent City analysts joined the chorus of disapproval? For example, Investec described the measure as a Budget nightmare and counter-intuitive. When the Committee of the whole House debated clause 20, the erstwhile Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey, misrepresentedperhaps wilfullythe Oppositions position on clause 112. As I said then, if our amendment at that time was not carried, we would support lifting VAT from bingo when we reached clause 112. That remains the case.
On the wider matter of the rise in bingo duty, I also said that the fairness of the Governments proposals would stand in question until the High Court had ruled. The Courts decision clearly reveals the proposals to be unfair, and our initial impression that they are a pre-emptive grab for revenue has been shown to be correct. Although taxing bingo at a higher rate than comparable forms of gambling could be justified in the context of a cut, it is hard to understand it over the longer term in the very different context of a tax increase. A future Conservative Government will hope to address that imbalance as time and the public finances allow.
Will the Government appeal the High Courts decision further? The Minister has said that she has not yet made up her mind, and I think that she has a few days to do so. It would be helpful if she told us some of the considerations that will be thrown into the mix when the Government decide whether to appeal the decision. Our debate would be put in its proper context if we had a feel for whether the court case will continue or not.

Alison Seabeck: I rise to highlight some problems faced by my constituency. We have a Mecca Bingo that thrives, in the main, but that has been badly hit by the smoking ban. Its members broadly welcome the clause, because any encouragement for them to participate

Greg Hands: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Seabeck: No, I will not for the moment. I want to put my constituents concerns on the record before taking an intervention. My constituents are keen for the Mecca Bingo, which is in one of the poor areas of Devonport, to survive and thrive. Also, a lot of people work at the bingo hall, and I have received many letters from employeesa group who have been largely ignored during todays debatewho want to ensure that their jobs continue. Confusion has arisen because, with a High Court judgment pending, people will be uncertain for a little while longer about the exact impact that the judgment will have in terms of the tax that the company will have to pay, and therefore the companys view of the viability of that bingo hall. We have heard of bingo halls that have closed in other parts of the country.
The Bills Report stage is a few weeks down the line. I hope that HMRC and the Treasury will have enough time in the intervening period to take a view on the High Courts decision, that they will introduce clear proposals to ensure that the bingo industry is made secure, and that my constituents will be able to continue to enjoy bingo in Plymouth.

Mark Field: Will the Minister indicate just how detrimental an effect the measure may have on the bingo industry at large, and give a perspective on the number of bingo halls have closed in the past three to five years? As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport has pointed out, the Governments smoking ban has been a major factor in some of the closures, and the measure we are discussing will be a second hammer blow.
I do not suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham did not demonstrate his characteristic good sense as he spoke for 35 minutes, but the nub of the argument is the difference between the duties on bingo played in a licensed club and those on online bingo, which are 22 and 15 per cent. respectively. Why on earth do we have that ludicrous disparity? It is one thing to say that bingo is such an undesirable activity that it needs to be heavily taxed, but on what basis is online bingo worthy of the lower, standard 15 per cent. tax, while club bingo is taxed at 22 per cent? It simply makes no sense.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am sure that members of the Committee will be pleased to know that I do not propose to rehash the debate on clause 20 that took place on the Floor of the House. I will, however, respond to the specific points that have been raised, particularly in relation to VAT.
First, I shall deal with the question about appeals. The decision on whether to appeal is not mine to make; it is for HMRC to decide whether to appeal, and it is now looking at the legal arguments. As I said, a decision will be made in time, as it has to be.
Another question was whether Red Book figures are based on the law as it stands at the time, or whether they are based on the perceived actual amount of VAT to come in.

Brian Binley: The Minister just said that she had no ability to influence or to seem to influence HMRC. Does that mean that HMRC can, on its own discretion, spend taxpayers money willy-nilly on an appeal that is so antisocial?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I do not accept the hon. Gentlemans point. There is a specific legal issue, and his extrapolation goes much too far.
Returning to my point, Red Book figures must be based on the law as it stands at the time, and the figures in it are based on that.

Greg Hands: This will be of interest to the Ministers hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. Can the Minister confirm whether my figures are correct? They are that £20 million comes from VAT on mainstage bingo, £25 million from interval bingo, and the other £5 million from equal-chance games other than bingo, principally poker. Are those figures, which I cobbled together from a variety of parliamentary answers, correct? I believe that her hon. Friend was asking the same question.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: If the hon. Gentleman should have had a little patience, because I was just about to come on to that point. The £50 million is made up of the cost of recovering VAT on mainstage bingo, interval bingo and card rooms. The roundings are to the nearest £5 million, so although £20 million, £25 million and £5 million are not exact figures, they show the proportions.

Greg Hands: I am intrigued. Why do the figures have to be rounded to £5 million? That is an incredible divergence on a figure of £20 million or £25 million. Is it to protect the commercial confidentiality of the various bingo operators? What is the rationale behind it?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That would certainly be a factor. I do not know the exact details of everything, but I would be more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain.

Peter Bone: The Minister makes an interesting point. She says that the Government based the Red Book figures on their understanding of the current law. I understand that, but is it not also the practice to provide for a contingent amount where there is a court case that the Revenue might lose? Has such provision been made?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I do not know the answer to that because I do not have the figures in front of me. Provision probably is made in the total of contingent liabilities, but it is unlikely to be specific. I do not want to say things that are not correct, so I will look into that and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Greg Hands: The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. What is the implication for the unpaid VAT from previous years? The Government were clearly counting on that VAT being paid. Where does all the VAT that the Government were expecting but that will now not be paid appear in the Red Book?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Again, I do not have the figures in front of me. It probably depends on whether HMRC decides to go further with an appeal. We can come back to that.
The clause makes bingo participation fees VAT exempt, and introduces a simplification that has long been asked for by the industry. The principal aim of the reforms is to simplify the bingo tax regime. In the Red Book, we gave the average estimated effective tax rate and set out what the effect will be. I remind the Committee that, in the Bingo Associations own Budget representations, it estimated its effective tax rate to be 24 to 25 per cent. On that basis, removal of the VAT and duty would reduce its effective tax rate. I am pleased to tell the Committee that I am meeting representatives of the Bingo Association on Tuesday, when they will put their arguments to me and we will discuss the matter.
The second part of the clause, of course, has the effect of making the participation fees for casino card rooms VAT exempt. In autumn 2007, we said that we would look at that matter. The most sensible way to tax casino card rooms is through the gaming duty regime, and the changes we will make in that respect will ensure consistency of treatment with other player-to-player gaming and make participation fees exempt.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham has said that the Opposition will support the clauseI would have been disappointed if they had not. I look forward to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113

Gaming duty

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Hands: The clause relates to gaming duty, which we have, in passing, already mentioned during the various discussions on bingo. The clause masks what for some casinos will be a very large increase in the tax paid on participation fees for games of poker. Player-to-player gamesthose games in which players bet against each other, rather than against the houseare not currently subject to gaming duty. That was felt to be fair because a pub, for example, or, indeed, a casino or any other premises that hosts a game of poker is essentially providing a service and does not make a direct profit from the gambling. In effect, such places charge a fee for the gambling to be housed in their premises and for providing the facilities, but they do not directly profit from the gaming that takes place. Until the Bill was drawn up, VAT rather than gaming duty was thought to be appropriate.
With player-to-player poker, I understandI have not seen it being played and am going on what one casino has told methat a casino hosts the event and charges a registration fee. A typical fee might be £5 for an evening, which seems incredibly low, although I am told that the fee can rise to as much as £50 to £100 an hour for large stakes games, particularly if the casino provides more staff to ensure security and the integrity of the game. There seems to be some sense in increasing the participation fee for a higher stakes game compared with games in which people just sit around and play for lower stakes. I do not know what the lowest form might be, but in those games, I assume that security is less of an issue.
In the clause, the Government propose to bring player-to-player games more widely into the gaming duty regime. The industry has protested about the measure, which will be a familiar theme in many clauses, not only because the rate of taxation will rise from effectively being 15 per cent.the rate of VATto sometimes being as high as 50 per cent., but because there are fears that the measure will drive business out of casinos altogether. One can understand the argument, at least to a certain point.

Brian Binley: The clause causes me great concern. We have a casino in Northampton that offers the very facilities about which my hon. Friend is talking in perfectly well run, well ordered surroundings. I am concerned that if the measure drives the high-stakes gambling business underground again, that will help to feed crime and other the antisocial behaviours that casinos, in fact, attempt to prevent.

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It would be good to hear from the Minister what consultation there has been with casinos and other parts of the industry and what assessment has been made of the possible antisocial consequences of this decision.
Poker, as we know, can take place almost anywhere with only a few players, a couple of packs of playing cards, some money and the will to play. I must confess to an interest in this matter. A number of people I have known over the past 20 years have played poker in their homes or in pubsindeed, I used to play when I was a student. If Dave Phillips is listening, he still owes me £58.50. I do not see him in the Gallery, but I have been chasing him for about 20 years. I wonder if a mention of the debt in Hansard might finally prompt him to pay up.
Jesting apart, I say that to make a similar point to that made by my hon. Friend. If poker is driven out of casinos and regulated environments, it will be played only in completely unregulated and unsupervised environments. At the very least, unpaid debts and bad blood will arise and more serious antisocial behaviour and crime could be a consequence. We await the Ministers views on this matter.
Casinos make the point that the house does not profit from hosting poker games. Poker is different from blackjack or roulette, from which the house effectively takes a cut. I will not say that the house fixes the odds, but we all understand that over time the house will accumulate a certain percentage. Poker is different because it is a player-to-player game. However, many people think that casinos are an appropriate environment for such gambling.
Gaming duty is a gross profits tax that is applied on a sliding scale from 15 to 50 per cent., depending on the profits of the individual casino, rather than the company or sector. Clause 113 follows on from the changes in clause 19, which we have already debated. A premises with a gross gaming yield of less than £1.929 million will be subject to a 15 per cent. rate. Smaller establishments will therefore be subject to the same rate as they currently pay for VAT. The rate rises in another four bands. Establishments with profits of more than £4.915 million will be taxed at a rate of 50 per cent. With the abolition of VAT on gaming duties, the net result for a larger casino could be that player-to-player poker is taxed effectively at 50 per cent. That is the problem. Smaller establishments are likely to be relatively unaffected by the changes and may even benefit from them when VAT returns to the higher rate of 17.5 per cent. in January 2010.
I have seen no analysis of the new effective tax rate for smaller premises. I would be grateful if the Minister supplied some Treasury estimates. Because they will be brought into the gaming duty net, pubs that host the occasional poker game may now face significant and prohibitive costs. I do not pretend to be an expert on the sector, but it appears that the costs of being brought into the gaming duty net will be prohibitive for small, occasional operators that want to offer such facilities, perhaps to their regular customers who do not usually go there to participate in gambling.
Interestingly, subsection (7) exempts members clubs and miners welfare institutes from gaming duty, but not pubs and other establishments. I would be grateful for an explanation of that from the Minister.

Brian Binley: It is well known that I am a keen supporter of the public house, which has been under immense pressuremany public houses are closing. As well as by entertaining customers and providing the traditional facilities, landlords are trying hard to find additional ways to bring in customers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure will accelerate the demise of public houses and will not allow landlords to be creative in that way?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We discussed at some length the future of pubs and the welfare of the pub sector when the Committee of the whole House debated a clause on alcohol duties. We have to recognise the overall business plans of pubs and the fact that some will need to diversify. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friends intervention.
The industry is worried by the changes. A spokesman came to see me last week and said that the change could drive poker back underground, back to the kitchens and dining rooms and other unregulated and unsupervised environments across the country. It would be helpful to know whether any organisations that represent the sector have been consulted. Has the impact been taken into account and will warnings be issued to alert the occasional operator of the proposed changes in the law?
On a broader note, it will be helpful to hear from the Minister what the Governments motive is for the proposals in the Bill. I think that she will say that throwing in the duties on person-to-person games together with the rest of the casinos activities is a simplification measure. I would be grateful if she explained what has changed over the past year that has made her bring forward the proposal now.
The Red Book estimates that £5 million will be raised from incorporating player-to-player games within the gaming duty regime. As I mentioned in the debate on the last clause, the Governments figure on bingo VAT receipts seemed to imply a £5 million loss on removing VAT from such an activity. If the proposals really are revenue neutral, that would suggest that small poker rooms or casinos will be major beneficiaries because larger casinos already know that they will be net losers. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether something has happened in the last minute or two. Perhaps I have said something that my hon. Friends profoundly disagree with. I was not aware that that particular paragraph was controversial.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend is right to question what is happening. Conservative Members will remove themselves for 10 to 15 minutes to consult with Mecca Bingo and other bingo halls about the bingo strategy that was previously outlined.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. I had thought for a moment that they were all friends of Dave Phillips and were alerting him to the fact that his £58.50 debt is now in Hansard.

Peter Atkinson: Order. We are getting a little noisy. We know that the Speaker does not like a lot of noise, so can we keep things a little quieter, please?

Greg Hands: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. I would appreciate confirmation that it is the case that larger casinos will be the net losers and that the smaller operatorspoker rooms or casinoswill be the major beneficiaries. That is, I think, the implication of the figures in the Red Book. Moreover, I should like an analysis of the change in the effective tax rates to which large casinos in particular will be subject. The National Casino Industry Forum believes that the effective tax rate on the player-to-player games will exceed 35 per cent. At the moment, the figure stands at 15 per cent. The forum has criticised the Government for a total failure to consult. It said:
None of the changes announced have been discussed with the industry at the various meetings held with ministers or officials from the Treasury (or from DCMS), this despite previous assurances that it would do so.
It seems to fly against the Governments stated aim of promoting softer forms of gaming within casinos to then significantly increase the tax on some of those forms of gaming. Will the Minister clarify why the industry was not consulted, and what discussions took place with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with regard to the balance of gaming within casinos and the likely effect of clause 113.
Finally, I should like some clarification as to the purpose of allowing exemptions to be made by statutory order. I have already mentioned two areas of exemption, and I am intrigued to know how the Government will consider future exemptions or perhaps repeal some of the existing ones.
Under what circumstances do the Government foresee the power being used? Although such orders would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, the possibility itself of an order coming before us that would fundamentally change the tax status of one of these places could create uncertainty. Old Conservative or trade union clubs offering poker to members could be faced with a bit of a surprise. I realise that that situation is not uniqueit is a fairly well-known feature of this placebut I would be interested to hear from the Minister on what grounds she thinks that such an order might be introduced. The notes in the Bill, and the paragraph on this power in the Financial Secretarys recent letter, do not appear to explain those procedures, so I would be grateful for some clarification.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman; he appears to have been totally abandoned by every Committee member from his partywas it something he said?
I want to pick up on some of the hon. Gentlemans points. The thrust and reasoning behind the clause is for consistency with other gambling sectors. It ensures that such gaming is exempt from VAT, but subject to the relevant gambling duty. Card room fees will therefore come under gaming duty. I also want to make it clear that pubs are not included, because the clause limits gaming duty to high-stake gaming, which, under social law, is permitted only on casino premises. Poker played in pubs and elsewhere for small stakes and prizes will not be drawn into the gaming duty by this measure. Someone mentioned that originally card rooms were considered as a service and not a profit for the house. The fees received for casino card rooms are now taxed on a consistent basis with other gambling activities. That is the thrust behind the clause.

Greg Hands: The Minister says that fees will be taxed on a consistent basis, but surely she must realise the fundamental difference between a participation fee on poker and the house taking a cut on something such as blackjack. Was she aware of the difference when she considered the background to the clause?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am certainly aware of that difference, but we are considering gambling and gaming as a whole. I see the hon. Gentlemans point about narrowness, but we are looking for consistency across gambling regimes.
I want to return to the point about consultation. In autumn 2007, we announced that we would reconsider the taxation of casino card rooms, and in 2008 and 2009 we received representations from the industry. Those suggested that card rooms were just a small part of the casino model and that many casinos did not offer player-to-player gambling. We concluded, therefore, that for consistency with other gambling regimes, fees should be VAT exempt, but be taxed under the relevant gambling duty.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we had included the option for exemptions under affirmative order. We have done so in case the social law changes the places permitted for high-stakes poker, in which case we would need the ability to change the legislation here. The second part of the clause was the result of a simplification request from the Gambling Commission and the casinos sector. Previously, individual casino games were listed in the Finance Act and new games had to be added through secondary legislation whenever the regulator wished to trial new games. That was a really cumbersome process, and this clause removes the need to list these games individually in tax legislation. It should facilitate the industry and the regulator in trialling new games quickly and in the certainty that the tax law captures them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114

Remote bingo etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Hands: The clause is branded as another tidying-up exercise, but it gives rise to some anomalies that I want to probe. Its intention seems to be to keep online bingo at a 15 per cent. rate. The scope of remote gaming duty will be extended to include online bingo, which will cease to be subject to standard bingo duty, which is what we have discussed at some length on at least a couple of occasions.
The irony, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, is that the Government will now tax online bingo at 15 per cent., but bingo played in clubs at 22 per cent. I understand why they want to make online bingo consistent with other forms of online gambling, but the anomaly arises in calling it a tidying-up or simplification exercise. It will benefit the online community who sit around at home and play online over perhaps more mature people who go to bingo clubs and take part in a social activity. What is the sense of that?
If anything, I would have thought that the bias should be away from online and, although regulated, unsupervised gambling to gambling in the supervised and regulated environment that bingo clubs provide. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made of people migrating from bingo clubswe all know that online penetration in communities that might typically be found in bingo clubs has increased enormously over the past 10 years to playing bingo online on, for example, a home computer?
Remote gaming duty is chargeable on games when players participate using the internet, telephone or interactive TV, but not when another gambling duty is charged. The Government are moving bingo from another category into the category subject to remote gaming duty. Because remote bingo was subject to standard bingo duty, some inconsistencies arose between online bingo and other online gambling. The issue is where to have the consistency. Should it be with online bingo and other forms of online gambling, which is what the Government propose, or with social club bingo and internet bingo? I may have laboured the point too long, and perhaps the choice is clear.
Clause 114 makes the opposite decision from the previous one. It prevents a tax rise that would otherwise be likely to cause a loss of revenue in practice as operators and internet users take further advantage of the lower tax rate on internet sites hosted abroad. As I said on clause 19, the overall revenue from remote gaming duty is so low that the Government cannot disclose it because it would compromise its obligations to the one significant operator left in the UK. The intent in the clause seems to be to have a negligible effect on the present arrangements for remote bingo, but I am wondering what effect it might have on the arrangements for club bingo. No doubt it will succeed in its first aim to create consistency, but we want to hear from the Government what consideration has been given to migration between two forms of bingo.

Jeremy Browne: We have a remote Conservative party here to discuss duty on remote bingo, although I must be careful how many stones I throw as I am the only representative of Britains strongly growing third party.

Greg Hands: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the only member of the Committee who has never attended it is his boss, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

Jeremy Browne: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has attended the Committee yet. However, if you will allow me, Mr. Atkinson, I would like to point out briefly that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury do not seem to regard the Committee as sufficiently important to take an interest in its affairs. Given the level of public debt, I regret that.
Let me turn to clause 114 because I want to explore briefly the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham. I do not have a particular attachment to gambling per se. In a liberal society, I am happy for people to choose to spend their money as they see fit, although I realise that in some casesalbeit fairly exceptional onesdoing so can have a detrimental effect on their finances, health or social circle. However, that is a decision people make and we should not seek to inhibit those decisions, unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason for doing so.
On bingo, I do not consider it to be my obligation as a politician to promote peoples participation in bingo purely as a form of gamblingthey may or may not choose to play bingo, and that is their decision. However, there is virtue in the social aspects of bingo, and I can see merit in us trying to encourage or, at any rate, not impede those sorts of activities. What seems so perverse about the clause is that it does not recognise that bingo clubs provide some sort of beneficial social servicealbeit on a commercial basis and if it is in their interests to do sowhereas the online version does not provide any of those benefits at all. If the Government were looking to discriminate in favour of one form of bingo over the other, one would imagine that the discrimination would not be aimed at the more social form of the game.
As the MP for Taunton, I have been to Mecca Bingo there. In discussions on previous clauses, it has been said that many people who choose to go to bingo have reasonably low incomes and that they do not spend a vast amount of money there. Bingo is an opportunity for people to meet friends. Meals are often provided at reasonably low cost and people enjoy the atmosphere and social aspect of attending a bingo hall. All of those advantages do not, of course, exist in the online form. Of course, the game at a bingo hall is also supervised, so unless the establishment is run by people with little social compassion, they would be in a position to intervene if someone were perhaps spending more money than they ought to given their means. Of course, that opportunity to intervene in a compassionate way does not readily exist in relation to the online form, which is to be given preferential tax treatment.

Mark Todd: I have a genuine query. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, perhaps the Minister will. Is there any reason why online facilities could not be offered within a bingo club, because that would provide access to many of the services that he rightly mentioned? There are other aspects to being present in the bingo hall that are not directly related to playing the game in a particular form.

Jeremy Browne: I defer to the Minister or her officials on that, but I am not aware that there is any bar to doing so.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I am not sure how relevant that is to the clause.

Jeremy Browne: A further point is that we assumeperhaps because Committee members are all of working age, or perhaps for another reasonthat internet access is universal. One could be forgiven for thinking that. On television and radio programmes, it is often said that more information will be made available on the website, and using the internet has become part of our daily dialogue. Of course, most people do have access to computers and the internet, but we should not forget that many people do not. Millions of people in this country neither have access to the internet nor know how to use a computer. I am inevitably generalising when I say this, but that is more likely to be the case if people are older and poorer. In both of those categories, particularly in relation to those on low incomes, there has been a big catch-up and far more people on low incomes have access to the internet than was the case. Let us be frank about itsome of the social activity in bingo halls is targeted at the tastes not of younger people but the more mature market. It seems strange that those who are older or on lower incomes, who may enjoy the social aspects of bingo, are taxed at a higher rate than those who are younger or on higher incomes, and who may have internet access at home. That is a perverse approach for any Government to take, but particularly a Labour Government.
The Exchequer Secretary has come to the Bill quite late in our deliberations, but I suggest that there is merit in consistency. We should probably be trying to achieve uniformity and iron out some of the inconsistencies. I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady, because the Finance Bill is typically the largest and most complex piece of legislation, and she will be immersed in detail. She is giving us the orthodoxy that she is required to produce on behalf of the Government, but familiarising herself with the Governments position is a huge undertaking without looking to challenge some of those assumptions.
If the Exchequer Secretary were to step back for a moment and consider the matter as a politician rather than as someone whose job is to ensure that the official line is communicated to Parliamentfor example, if she were to listen to the representations made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonportshe must surely see that the Government are unnecessarily bringing on themselves huge grief and unhappiness. Much of that will come from people who, in other circumstances, might consider voting for Labour at the next general election.
Not only would it be right to take a reasonable and consistent approach to taxation, but it would be in the Governments interests. As the Labour party is rightly seeking to appeal to the electorate, the Government should look again at this area of taxation. It is shot through with anomalies, and on the whole those anomalies are least fair to the oldest and poorest in society.

Brian Jenkins: I wish to make a few points on remote gambling. One or two matters have been raised during the debatesome might refer to the previous clauseand I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary were to answer them.
If a small community in the country does not have internet access, but access is provided by a social club, one can enter that social club and for a small charge gain access to online gambling from the monitors in cubicles around the room. What tax or duty will the provider of that facility have to pay? That is an interesting point, and I hope that the Minister has an interesting answer.
It is possible that a community 20, 30 or 40 miles down the road has access to the internet, and individuals there can gain access to remote bingo at home. If they cannot, and someone has made provision for it out of the goodness of their heart, what tax would they pay for making such provision?
It is okay for the Government to say that they will collect tax on the gambling duty regime, but what if the site provider does not have a site under our tax jurisdiction? What are we going to do then? Are we going to start chasing around the world for different sites, or for offshore site providers who might be run by a Mickey Mouse company? The resident of that island might be an ex-dom tax resident of Britain. Such people may be collecting the duties from bingo but not paying them over. Do we collect the tax in this country? Will the Minister say whether that is possible? If it is, I would point out one of two of the difficulties that we had clearing up problems with gambling in the horse industry.
There are questions at both ends of the remote problem, and I would be grateful to hear some comments from the Minister.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson. Like other Members, I visit my local bingo halls. I have two very large Mecca Bingo halls in my constituencyin Oldbury and Wednesbury. They play a very valuable part in the social life of the community, particularly for the elderly. I have listened to the arguments, both in the bingo halls and from the Minister today, and there are a number of areas I do not feel totally comfortable with at the moment.
First, there seems to be an absence of, shall we say, verifiable statistics to deal with the revenues and incomes of the various forms of taxation. Secondly, there is the principled argument, elaborated on by the hon. Member for Taunton. I compliment him on raising some very important points: the difference and seeming inconsistency between the gaming rates on bingo, which is in a comfortable controlled environment, and those on remote gambling, which is not so controllable and is potentially used by far more vulnerable people.

Alison Seabeck: On a linked point, and picking up on a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, when is online not online? Would it be possible for a bingo hall to have a big screen, with an online game going on from somewhere, with people participating? How would that be taxed? Does my hon. Friend share my concern and hope that the Minister will answer that?

Adrian Bailey: My hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth and for Plymouth, Devonport have raised a very important point that does not seem to have been fully explored.
The substantive point that I want to make is that online gambling is a private and uncontrollable activity. Given the greater predilection of the younger generation to conduct such activity online, they are disproportionately vulnerable to some of its social consequences. Considerable research needs to be conducted to rationalise our taxation policy in this area so that it is more consistent with what I think we all agree are appropriate social aims. I conclude my comments there. I await the Ministers response, but advocate considerably more research, with perhaps modifications made at subsequent Budgets to realise those social aims.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The clause, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham rightly points out, corrects a deficiency in the original legislation for remote gaming duty. The duty on remote gaming operators based in the UK ensures that our original policy intentions are delivered. The policy intention has always been that remote bingo should be part of remote gaming duty and should not come under the bingo duty. Without the clause, there is a danger that remote bingo will be left entirely untaxed. The clause ensures absolute clarity.
Some wider and very interesting issues were discussed. There was a question on what assessment the Government had made of the move from club to online bingo. We monitor the development of online and remote forms of gambling, and its impact on club-based gambling. Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers are currently undertaking a review of the regulation of online and remote forms of gambling. I am sure that that will inform further thinking on the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West will take comfort from that.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.